HomeMy Public PortalAbout05 May 21, 2012 Western Riverside County Programs and ProjectsComments are welcomed by the Committee. If you wish to provide comments to the Committee,
please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE
MEETING AGENDA
TIME: 1:30 p.m.
DATE: Monday, May 21, 2012
LOCATION: CONFERENCE ROOM A PLEASE NOTE LOCATION CHANGE
County of Riverside Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Adam Rush, Chair / Ike Bootsma, City of Eastvale
Andrew Kotyuk, Vice Chair / Scott Miller, City of San Jacinto
Bob Botts / Don Robinson, City of Banning
Karen Spiegel / Eugene Montanez, City of Corona
Frank Johnston / Micheal Goodland, City of Jurupa Valley
Darcy Kuenzi / Wallace Edgerton, City of Menifee
Marcelo Co / Richard Stewart, City of Moreno Valley
Berwin Hanna / Kathy Azevedo, City of Norco
Daryl Busch / Al Landers, City of Perris
Ben Benoit / Timothy Walker, City of Wildomar
Bob Buster, County of Riverside, District I
Marion Ashley, County of Riverside, District V
STAFF
Anne Mayer, Executive Director
John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director
AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY
Air Quality, Capital Projects,
Communications and Outreach Programs,
Intermodal Programs,
Motorist Services, New Corridors,
Regional Agencies/Regional Planning,
Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP),
Specific Transit Projects,
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP),
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program, and
Provide Policy Direction on Transportation Programs and Projects
related to Western Riverside County and other
areas as may be prescribed by the Commission.
Alexandra Rackerby
From: Alexandra Rackerby
Sent:
To:
Wednesday, May 16, 2012 5:31 PM
Alexandra Rackerby
Subject: RCTC Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee -lpad Compatible Users
Good Morning Commissioners,
The Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee agenda for Monday May 21, 2012 is
posted on our Website at http://www.rctc.org/uploads/media items/western-riverside-county-programs-and-
projects-march-26-2012-l.origina l.pdf
Let me if you have any questions or concerns.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Allie Rackerby
Riverside County Transportation Commission
(951) 787-7141
1
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
COMMITTEE
www.rctc.org
AGENDA*
*Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda
1:30 p.m.
Monday, May 21, 2012
CONFERENCE ROOM A
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor
Riverside, California
In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials
distributed 72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session
agenda items, will be available for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting at
the Commission office, 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the
Commission’s website, www.rctc.org.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section
54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact
the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting
time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide
accessibility at the meeting.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS – Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3)
continuous minutes or less. The Committee may, either at the direction of the
Chair or by majority vote of the Committee, waive this three minute time
limitation. Depending on the number of items on the Agenda and the number of
speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, reduce the time of each speaker
to two (2) continuous minutes. Also, the Committee may terminate public
comments if such comments become repetitious. In addition, the maximum time
for public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30) minutes.
Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair.
Any written documents to be distributed or presented to the Committee shall be
submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy applies to Public Comments and
comments on Agenda Items.
Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
May 21, 2012
Page 2
Under the Brown Act, the Board should not take action on or discuss matters
raised during public comment portion of the agenda which are not listed on the
agenda. Board members may refer such matters to staff for factual information
or to be placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – APRIL 23, 2012
6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Committee may add an item to the Agenda after
making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and
that the item came to the attention of the Committee subsequent to the posting
of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the
Committee. If there are less than 2/3 of the Committee members present,
adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be
placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.)
7. STATE ROUTE 91 PROJECT AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES
Page 1
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 09-31-081-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement
No. 09-31-081-00, with Parsons Transportation Group, Inc. (Parsons) to
provide additional services for Phase 1 of the SR-91 Corridor Improvement
Project (SR-91 CIP) widening and extension of the 91 Express Lanes in
the amount of $18,434,545, plus a contingency of $1,850,000, for a
total amount not to exceed $20,284,545, and a total authorized contract
value of $60,084,545;
2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the
agreement on behalf of the Commission;
3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work
as may be required for the project; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
8. STATE ROUTE 91 DESIGN-BUILD PROCUREMENT
Page 7
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
May 21, 2012
Page 3
1) Authorize staff, subject to approval by the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) and the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), to issue a request for proposal (RFP) and future addenda for
design-build services in accordance with Public Contract Code sections
6800 et seq. for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91
CIP) to the four pre-qualified design-build teams;
2 Approve the selection criteria and process for selection of the pre-qualified
firm providing the best-value to the Commission, otherwise known as
apparent best value (ABV) proposer;
3) Authorize the Executive Director to select the three top-ranked ABV
Proposers for design-build services, based on the criteria and selection
procedures identified in the RFP and any addendum(s) thereto, and
subsequently to conduct limited negotiations with the top-ranked ABV
proposer;
4) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to negotiate with the
second-ranked ABV proposer if negotiations fail with the top-ranked ABV
proposer and with the third-ranked ABV proposer should negotiations fail
with both the top-ranked and second-ranked ABV proposers;
5) Authorize the Executive Director to issue a request for a best and final
offer (BAFO) to the proposers if found to be in the best interests of the
Commission, to make changes to the RFP, solicit BAFOs from proposers,
evaluate revised proposals, select an ABV proposer, negotiate with the
top-ranked proposer and second and third-ranked if necessary, and make a
recommendation of contract award based upon the revised proposals in
accordance with 23 CFR Part 636;
6) Authorize the Executive Director to return to the Commission with a
recommendation to award a contract for design-build services. The
recommendation shall be accompanied by a written decision supporting
the recommendation and stating the basis for the award;
7) Authorize the Executive Director to pay a stipend to unsuccessful
proposers that meet the RFP criteria for stipend payment up to $650,000
per unsuccessful proposers or a total not to exceed of $2.6 million for all
unsuccessful proposers after final action by the Commission on the RFP;
8) Approve that particular materials, products, or services that are elements
of the proposed design-build services for the SR-91 CIP are to be
designated in the RFP by specific brand names or trade names to match
and be interoperable with other products used by the Commission and
other related facilities as authorized by Public Contracts Code, section
3400(b); and
9) Forward to the Commission for final action.
Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
May 21, 2012
Page 4
9. RCTC 91 EXPRESS LANES TOLL POLICY
Page 22
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Adopt Resolution 12-019, “Resolution of the Riverside County
Transportation Commission Regarding the RCTC 91 Express Lanes Toll
Policy”;
2) Adopt the Riverside County 91 Express Lanes Extension Investment Grade
Study (Traffic and Revenue Study); and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
10. STATE ROUTE 91 HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE PROJECT COOPERATIVE
AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
Page 42
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Reprogram federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds
from construction savings to cover the increase in Caltrans’ expenditures
for the plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E) related to the State
Route 91 high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes project;
2) Approve Agreement No. 06-31-062-02, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement
No. 06-31-062-00, to increase funding by the amount of $1,225,534 for
the PS&E phase for the SR-91 HOV lanes project;
3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the
agreement on behalf of the Commission; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
May 21, 2012
Page 5
11. STATE ROUTE 60 TRUCK CLIMBING/DESCENDING LANE PROJECT – PROJECT
APPROVAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
Page 44
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Agree to sponsor the project approval and environmental document
(PA&ED) phase of the State Route 60 truck climbing lane project;
2) Approve the programming of Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ)
funds in the amount of $3,006,000 for PA&ED;
3) Approve Cooperative Agreement No. 12-31-092-00 with Caltrans for the
PA&ED phase for the SR-60 truck climbing lane project;
4) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the
agreement on behalf of the Commission;
5) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to
execute any future non-funding related amendments; and
6) Forward to the Commission for final action.
12. CITY OF CORONA FUNDING REQUEST FOR FOOTHILL PARKWAY
Page 69
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve programming $7 million of Western County’s 2009 Measure A
Regional Arterial (MARA) funds as local match to $7 million of Proposition
1B State-Local Partnership Program (SLPP) formula funds for the city of
Corona’s (Corona) Foothill Parkway westerly extension project;
2) Submit the Foothill Parkway project nomination forms for SLPP funding of
$7 million to the California Transportation Commission;
3) Approve Agreement No. 12-72-093-00 with Corona to program $7 million
in MARA funds;
4) Approve reprogramming approximately $7 million of TUMF regional
arterial funds from Foothill Parkway right of way phase to the
construction phase;
5) Approve Agreement No. 06-72-540-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement
No. 06-72-540-00, with Corona to reflect the reprogramming of right of
way savings to construction;
6) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the
agreements; and
7) Forward to the Commission for final action.
Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
May 21, 2012
Page 6
13. PROPOSED METROLINK BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012/13
Page 73
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Adopt the preliminary FY 2012/13 Southern California Regional Rail
Authority (SCRRA) operating and capital budget with anticipation of a
5 to 9 percent fare increase;
2) Approve the additional Inland Empire Orange County (IEOC) service with
an additional peak period round trip and expanded year round weekend
service;
3) Allocate the Commission’s funding commitment to the SCRRA in an
amount not to exceed of $7,575,300 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF)
funds for train operations and maintenance of way plus a contingency of
$2,424,700 in LTF funds for new service options and $250,000 for
capital projects to be funded by State Transit Assistance funds; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
14. FISCAL YEAR 2012/13 MEASURE A COMMUTER ASSISTANCE BUSPOOL
SUBSIDY FUNDING CONTINUATION REQUESTS
Page 79
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Authorize payment of $1,645/month maximum subsidy per buspool for
the period July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013, to the existing Corona, Mira
Loma, and Riverside buspools;
2) Require subsidy recipients to meet monthly buspool reporting
requirements as supporting documentation to receive payments; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
15. IOWA AVENUE GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT
Page 86
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Allocate $500,000 in federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ)
funds to the city of Riverside (Riverside) to provide a match, if needed, in
support of the Iowa Avenue grade separation project; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
May 21, 2012
Page 7
16. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT
Overview
This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and staff to report on
attended and upcoming meeting/conferences and issues related to Commission
activities.
17. ADJOURNMENT AND NEXT MEETING
The next Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee meeting is
scheduled to be held at 1:30 p.m., Monday, June 25, 2012, Board Chambers,
First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
COMMITTEE
ROLL CALL
MAY 21, 2012
Present
County of Riverside, District I
County of Riverside, District V
City of Banning
City of Corona
City of Eastvale
City of Jurupa Valley
City of Menifee
City of Moreno Valley
City of Norco
City of Perris
City of San Jacinto
City of Wildomar -
2i'
JZ('
~ .a--
K :-
~
D
J!l
Absent
D
(]
D
(]
D
(]
D
(]
D
(]
71'
(]
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS SIGN-IN SHEET
MAY 21, 2012
'7 / NAME .c. AGENCY E MAIL ADDRESS
/-ftf17 /;72-/(' ~5// /4:>;/U?/P
IJ-~w 'ji.J I ,':1 thu JVlf ~~WJ
l~o~ \~ o\"\s (, h a{' f?::>A-:NJ.h' Na
~ vuJc.. ::1.,-Ltn , .. 1~ ..._ ~f»YVA~A VCvifL~ J
1)/J 1/v //l:";fr at//", ~1&0/'flf4 (
Yn aAru.io _(~ 71JlJJ/~ 1/a_Lf,t,A
v l( 1)_,._. "'.,0 tff' (r{.. "'.Af'D_L ( . {fr' .eUa/\ J
~ \ l<IALfl7_~' '"~,1-cf "-/
/G, /It/?. I cr.Ml !"+<I 1-/-( ~ f
f> IV-C /"'t_ #:. .\
'
AGENDA ITEM 5
MINUTES
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE
Monday, April 23, 2012
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects
Committee was called to order by Chair Adam Rush at 1:33 p.m.,
in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center,
4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
At this time, Commissioner Bob Botts led the Western Riverside County
Programs and Projects Committee in a flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Members/Alternates Present Members Absent
Marion Ashley Daryl Busch
Ben Benoit Bob Buster
Bob Botts
Marcelo Co
Berwin Hanna
Frank Johnston
Andrew Kotyuk
Darcy Kuenzi
Adam Rush
Karen Spiegel
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no requests to speak from the public.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – MARCH 26, 2012
M/S/C (Hanna/Ashley) to approve the minutes as submitted.
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
April 23, 2012
Page 2
6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS
There were no additions or revisions to the agenda.
At this time, Commissioner Karen Spiegel arrived at the meeting.
7. CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDER POLICIES
Marlin Feenstra, Project Delivery Director, presented the construction change
order policies.
At Commissioner Botts’ request, Marlin Feenstra explained why this item
was brought forward for review.
M/S/C (Kuenzi/Spiegel) to:
1) Review the Commission’s existing change order procedure;
2) Require committee action when contract change orders exceed
the previously-approved contingency; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
8. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE FOR THE
STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Dave Thomas, Toll Program Manager, presented an overview of the
agreement with the county of Riverside for the State Route 91 Corridor
Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP).
M/S/C (Kotyuk/Kuenzi) to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 12-31-080-00, a cooperative
agreement between the Commission and the county of
Riverside (County) related to the SR-91 CIP;
2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel
review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission;
and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
April 23, 2012
Page 3
9. AGREEMENT WITH JACOBS PROJECT MANAGEMENT CO. FOR
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES AND COOPERATIVE
AGREEMENT WITH CALTRANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE INTERSTATE
215 CENTRAL WIDENING PROJECT FROM SCOTT ROAD TO NUEVO ROAD,
IN THE CITY OF PERRIS
At this time, Commissioner Marion Ashley recused himself due to conflict of
interest for this agenda item and Agenda Item 10 and left the meeting.
Lisa DaSilva, Capital Projects Manager, presented an overview of the
agreement with Jacobs Project Management Co. for construction
management services and cooperative agreement with Caltrans for
construction of the I-215 Central widening project from Scott Road to Nuevo
Road, in the city of Perris.
In response to Commissioner Andrew Kotyuk’s question regarding the use of
photographs for cross-section analysis, Anne Mayer, Executive Director,
stated the data being collected demonstrates what is actually being built.
Pictures do not demonstrate the cross section was built to plan.
Commissioner Kotyuk then discussed the benefits of photographs and asked
staff to consider adding photographs as part of the survey deliverable.
In response to Commissioner Kotyuk’s safety concerns, Lisa DaSilva stated
all OSHA standards are followed and the items listed as part of the staff
report are additional items staff would like the contractor to focus on.
M/S/C (Kuenzi/Botts) to:
1) Award Agreement No. 12-31-034-00 to Jacobs Project
Management Co. (Jacobs) to provide construction management
(CM) services, materials testing, and construction surveying for
the I-215 central widening project, Scott Road to Nuevo Road,
in the city of Perris, in the amount of $11,807,334, plus a
contingency amount of $1,192,666, for a total amount not to
exceed $13 million;
2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to
execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission;
3) Authorize the Executive Director to approve contingency work
as may be required for the project;
4) Approve Cooperative Agreement No. 12-31-078-00 with
Caltrans for construction of the project;
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
April 23, 2012
Page 4
5) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel
review, to execute the cooperative agreement and future non-
funding related amendments to this agreement; and
6) Forward to the Commission for final action.
10. INTERSTATE 215 SCOTT ROAD TO NUEVO ROAD – UTILITY AGREEMENTS
AND CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
Mark Lancaster, Interim Right of Way Manager, presented the scope of the
utility agreements and construction and maintenance agreement for
properties along the I-215 Central widening project.
In response to Commissioner Kotyuk’s question regarding excavation, Mark
Lancaster stated there is a paleontological monitoring plan.
Anne Mayer added that those areas where subsurface artifacts would likely
be found would be identified in the environmental document.
At Chair Rush’s request, Anne Mayer discussed the funding for the projects,
specifically focusing on the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA)
and State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funding.
M/S/C (Kuenzi/Benoit) to:
1) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel
review, to execute the utility agreements related to the I-215
Scott Road to Nuevo Road Central widening project on behalf of
the Commission;
2) Approve Agreement No. 12-31-082-00 with Caltrans for
construction and maintenance of the Ethanac Overhead Bridge;
3) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel
review, to execute Agreement No. 12-31-082-00 on behalf of
the Commission; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
April 23, 2012
Page 5
11. AGREEMENT WITH HDR CONSTRUCTION CONTROL CORPORATION FOR
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
THE INTERSTATE 215/BLAINE STREET TO MARTIN LUTHER KING
BOULEVARD WIDENING PROJECT
Patti Castillo, Capital Projects Manager, presented the scope of the agreement
with HDR Construction Control Corporation for construction management
services for the construction of the I-215/Blaine Street to Martin Luther King
Boulevard widening project.
M/S/C (Benoit/Johnston) to:
1) Award Agreement No. 12-31-057-00 to HDR Construction
Control Corporation (HDR) to provide construction management
(CM), materials testing, and construction surveying services for
the Interstate 215/Blaine Street to Martin Luther King Boulevard
widening project, in the amount of $218,731, plus a
contingency amount of $21,873, for a total amount not to
exceed $240,604;
2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to
execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission;
3) Authorize the Executive Director to approve contingency work
as may be required for the project; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
12. AMENDMENT WITH STV, INCORPORATED FOR FEDERAL TRANSIT
ADMINISTRATION COORDINATION AND SMALL STARTS SUPPORT FOR
THE PERRIS VALLEY LINE
Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director, presented an overview of the
scope of the amendment with STV, Incorporated for Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) coordination and Small Starts program support for the
Perris Valley Line.
In response to Chair Rush’s question regarding the additional work by STV,
Cathy Bechtel stated the additional reports were requested by FTA, noting
significant additional work was required for level boarding.
Anne Mayer provided additional details regarding level boarding.
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
April 23, 2012
Page 6
M/S/C (Johnston/Spiegel) to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 08-33-069-03, Amendment No. 3 to
Agreement 08-33-069-00, with STV Incorporated (STV) for
additional assistance with Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
coordination and Small Starts program support for the Perris
Valley Line project in the amount of $115,000, for a total
contract amount of $315,709;
2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to
execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
13. PERRIS VALLEY LINE – UTILITY AGREEMENTS
Mark Lancaster presented the utility agreements related to the Perris Valley
Line project.
M/S/C (Hanna/Kotyuk) to:
1) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel
review, to execute the utility agreements related to the Perris
Valley Line commuter rail project on behalf of the Commission;
2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel
review, to execute the utility service agreements related to the
Perris Valley Line commuter rail project on behalf of the
Commission; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
14. AGREEMENT FOR THE OPERATION OF THE FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL
PROGRAM IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY
Jillian Edmiston, Staff Analyst, presented the scope of the agreement for the
operation of the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program in Riverside County.
In response to Chair Rush’s question regarding phasing out of this program,
Anne Mayer clarified that the Commission is scaling back the call box program
and expanding the FSP program.
At Commissioner Karen Spiegel’s request, Jillian Edmiston provided additional
information regarding the agreement funding and program reserves.
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
April 23, 2012
Page 7
M/S/C (Kuenzi/Spiegel) to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 12-45-068-00 with the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for the operation of the
Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program in the
amount of $1,653,564 in state funding for FY 2011/12;
2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to
execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
15. AMENDMENTS TO FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL AGREEMENTS
Jillian Edmiston presented an overview of the amendments to the FSP
agreements for FSP Beat Nos. 4, 18, and 19.
At Chair Rush’s request, Jillian Edmiston explained the reasons for the cost
increase for the agreement with Pepe’s Towing for Beat No. 18.
M/S/C (Benoit/Johnston) to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 07-45-134-04, Amendment No. 4 to
Agreement No. 07-45-134-00, with Pepe’s Towing (Pepe’s) to
provide Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) services on Beat No. 18 in
the amount of $115,000;
2) Approve Agreement No. 07-45-136-03, Amendment No. 3 to
Agreement No. 07-45-136-00, with Pepe’s to provide FSP
services on Beat No. 19 in the amount of $200,000;
3) Approve Agreement No. 11-45-146-01, Amendment No. 1 to
Agreement No. 11-45-146-00, with Pepe’s to provide FSP
services on Beat No. 4 in the amount of $800,000; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
16. FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL COST EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION
Jillian Edmiston presented an overview of the FSP cost effectiveness
evaluation.
At Commissioner Botts’ request, Jillian Edmiston explained the cost benefit
ratio, how it is calculated, and the related deliverables of the cost effectiveness
evaluation.
At Chair Rush’s request, Jillian Edmiston discussed the development process
for new FSP beats.
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
April 23, 2012
Page 8
Anne Mayer added that FSP options are being discussed for Coachella Valley.
M/S/C (Kotyuk/Johnston) to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 12-45-079-00 with DKS Associates
(DKS) to provide a Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) cost
effectiveness evaluation in the amount of $25,000;
2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to
execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
17. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT
17A. Anne Mayer announced:
Due to the Memorial Day holiday, the May Committees are
scheduled for May 21, 2012, in RCTC Conference Room A on
the Third Floor; and
Due to the Board of Supervisors’ Budget hearing, the June
Commission meeting is scheduled for Thursday, June 7, 2012.
18. ADJOURNMENT AND NEXT MEETING
There being no further business for consideration by the Western Riverside
County Programs and Projects Committee, the meeting was adjourned at
2:43 p.m. The next meeting of the Western Riverside County Programs and
Projects Committee is scheduled for May 21, 2012, at 9:30 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Harmon
Clerk of the Board
AGENDA ITEM 7
Agenda Item 7
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: May 21, 2012
TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
FROM: David Thomas, Toll Project Manager
THROUGH: Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director
SUBJECT: State Route 91 Project and Construction Management Services
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 09-31-081-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement
No. 09-31-081-00, with Parsons Transportation Group, Inc. (Parsons) to
provide additional services for Phase 1 of the SR-91 Corridor Improvement
Project (SR-91 CIP) widening and extension of the 91 Express Lanes in the
amount of $18,434,545, plus a contingency of $1,850,000, for a total
amount not to exceed $20,284,545, and a total authorized contract value of
$60,084,545;
2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the
agreement on behalf of the Commission;
3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work as
may be required for the project; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final approval.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Due to the passage of the 2009 Measure A extension in 2002, the Commission
adopted the 2009 Measure A Western County Highway 10-Year Delivery Plan
(10-Year Delivery Plan) in December 2006. In this action, the Commission also
directed staff to proceed with development of a project report/environmental
document for all the new projects identified in the plan. The SR-91 corridor
improvement project (SR-91 CIP) was included in the 10-Year Delivery Plan and
given high priority by the Commission.
In September 2007, the Commission approved an agreement with PB Americas and
authorized staff to proceed with preliminary engineering/environmental services for
the SR-91 CIP. This project report/environmental document is currently scheduled
to be completed in the summer 2012.
1
Agenda Item 7
In October 2009, the Commission approved an agreement with Parsons to provide
design-build services through final design and construction of the SR-91 CIP and
authorized staff to proceed with the first work phase – Phase 1 Project and
Construction Management (PCM) services – for a not to exceed amount of
$39.8 million that includes a contingency amount of $4,260,701. These Phase 1
PCM services included working on interagency agreements, right of way
acquisition, utility relocations, advanced final engineering, and procurement of a
design-builder. The cost for the Phase 1 PCM Services was based upon a schedule
duration of two years. Staff will negotiate a contract amendment with the PCM to
provide Phase 2 services to deliver the SR-91 CIP through final engineering,
construction, and toll operation start up. Staff will return to the Commission with a
contract amendment request to authorize staff to proceed with Phase 2 services.
Structuring the work in two phases results in a key decision point for the
Commission. Phase 1 covers all work necessary from the PCM prior to the sale of
toll revenue and sales tax bonds. The successful sale of toll revenue and sales tax
bonds is paramount in order to commence Phase 2 activities. Phase 2 contract
authorization could be provided upon a successful sale of toll revenue and sales tax
bonds. A two-phase approach allows the Commission to control whether and
when to begin Phase 2 activities.
The initially assumed two-year duration for the PCM Phase 1 services was based
upon the assumption, at that time, that the successful sale of toll revenue and
sales tax bonds would occur in fall 2011/winter 2012. There are several factors
that caused this duration to extend approximately 18 months to the current
scheduled date in July 2013. Among these factors are:
1. Completing environmental approval for the project, which was initially
scheduled for the spring/summer of 2011, but now scheduled for the
summer of 2012; and
2. Success in obtaining an invitation for Transportation Investment Finance and
Innovation Act (TIFIA) funding, which recently occurred on April 24, 2012,
and was the trigger for finalizing the design-build procurement schedule.
Staff, working with the PCM team, successfully continued to work beyond the
initial two-year duration (approximately nine additional months), keeping within the
Commission authorized agreement not to exceed amount. With the successful
invitation for the Commission to apply for a TIFIA loan to complete the required
funding for the project, staff, on May 7, 2012, invited the four prequalified design-
build firms to perform an industry review of the draft request for proposal (RFP) for
the SR-91 CIP. This kicked off the process for the final selection of a design-
builder for the SR-91 CIP. This process is currently scheduled to be complete in
April 2013 with the award of a design-build contract by the Commission. The PCM
2
Agenda Item 7
will be an integral part of this selection process, and this will be a major part of the
PCM scope of work for the coming fiscal year.
The other main PCM scope of work efforts, over the next year, will include the
following items:
1. The continuing work effort involved with right of way acquisition for the
project;
2. Coordinating with the five major utilities that are in conflict with the
proposed SR-91 CIP improvements for relocation of utilities and procurement
of long lead items;
3. Coordinating with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad for
construction and maintenance agreements required to allow access on the
BNSF property; and
4. Continued coordination with the Orange County Transportation Authority
(OCTA) and its express lane toll operator, Cofiroute, for planning of the
Commission’s integration with the existing facility.
The following list is the PCM’s scope summary of Phase 1 services to be continued
through the extended Phase 1 duration:
1. Agency Coordination (Federal Highway Administration, Caltrans, Corona,
Riverside County, OCTA, resource agencies);
2. Right of Way Acquisition and Mitigation Planning (right of way engineering,
appraisals, fee acquisitions, utility easements, relocations, etc.);
3. Railroad Agreements and Utility Relocation (agreements, coordination, and
advanced utility relocation plans);
4. Procurement of Design-Builder (industry review, RFP, one-on-one meetings,
alternate technical proposals, design-build contract provision input, selection
process, contract negotiations, contract award process);
5. Advanced Engineering to Support the RFP and Agreements (Perform limited,
advanced engineering in several areas including long lead time bridges,
surveying, stage construction, geotechnical explorations/reports, etc. prior to
the procurement of a design-builder. Coordinate with existing project
approval and environmental document firm(s) as necessary for information
and engineering work in support of the design-build RFP);
6. Project Controls and Implementation Planning (schedule, budget, document
control system, forecasting, reporting, project management plan, project
procedures);
7. Tolling Technology Requirements and Agreements (tolling management plan,
systems integration contract, business rules, operations agreement, etc.);
and
8. Public Information/Outreach (web sites, public meetings, newsletters, media
reports, community outreach presentations, etc.).
3
Agenda Item 7
Staff recommends approval of Agreement No. 09-31-081-01, Amendment No. 1 to
Agreement No. 09-31-081-00, with Parsons to provide additional services for
Phase 1 of the SR-91 CIP for an additional amount of $ 18,434,545, plus a
contingency of $1,850,000 for a total amount not to exceed $20,284,545. This
would bring the total authorized contract value to $60,084,545. Staff further
recommends that the Commission authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel
review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission and authorize the
Executive Director or designee to approve contingency as may be required for the
project.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes
N/A Year: FY 2012/13
FY 2013/14 Amount: $17,100,000
$3,184,545
Source of Funds: Measure A/debt proceeds Budget Adjustment: No
N/A
GL/Project Accounting No.: 003028 81601 262 31 81601
Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 05/10/12
Attachment: PCM Amendment No. 1 Budget Summary.
4
5/9/2012RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC)SR91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECTPARSONS (PCM)LIMITED NOTICE TO PROCEED #6 BUDGETFINAL 1 OF 10WBS NumberActivity DescriptionHours Parsons GCAP Arellano HDR Southstar OPC Psomas Cofiroute Total Cost Total Cost by Task TASK 100 - Project Management10101Project ManagementProject Management2,080689,260$ 689,260$ Admin Support3,600292,395$ 292,395$ 10201Project Support0-$ Safety 508,165$ 8,165$ QA/QC508,165$ 8,165$ Insurance0-$ -$ Financing/ Funding Support32074,058$ 74,058$ Agency Support520 120,345$ 120,345$ Right of Way Mitigation Coordination0-$ -$ Partnering0-$ -$ Project Labor Agreement0-$ -$ Process Improvement0-$ -$ Management Startup Support0-$ -$ 11101Risk Management52084,917$ 84,917$ 11301Policies, Plans and Manuals1,300230,557$ 230,557$ 15501Community/Government Relations1,380266,852$ 266,852$ 15601Labor and DBE Compliance1,266142,224$ 142,224$ 1,916,938$ TASK 200 - Planning & Design201 01Planning and Design Management2,080336,359$ 336,359$ 202 01Design Support Activities 2,637293,201$ 293,201$ 203 01Structures (Bridges & Retaining Walls)10024,124$ 24,124$ 204 01Civil (Roadways and Drainage)0-$ -$ 205 01Traffic, MOT, ITS10022,003$ 22,003$ 206 01GeoTechnical Oversight10014,846$ 14,846$ 207 01ITS, Electrical, Lighting0-$ -$ 208 01Landscape and Aesthetics10024,124$ 24,124$ 209 01Roadway Conditions 10031,812$ 31,812$ 210 01 Environmental16223,620$ 23,620$ 21101Permits32042,416$ 42,416$ 21201Utility Management20721,950$ 21,950$ 25101Survey/ROW Engineering6,3721,004,877$ 1,004,877$ 25201R/W Acquisition49,4748,284,368$ 8,284,368$ 25301Utilities Planning10020,113$ 20,113$ 25401Utilities Planning0-$ 25501Geotechnical0-$ 25601Civil (Roadways and Drainage)27044,352$ 44,352$ 25611Roadway Conditions-$ 25701Railroad Coordination823160,327$ 160,327$ 25801ROW - Property Management5,000482,080$ 482,080$ 25811Property Management Costs8,125475,304$ 475,304$ 25821Property Management Costs - Vendor 250,000$ 250,000$ 25901Design Management and Support520110,034$ 110,034$ LNTP 6 Budget - Rev 2 - FINAL.xlsx5
5/9/2012RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC)SR91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECTPARSONS (PCM)LIMITED NOTICE TO PROCEED #6 BUDGETFINAL 2 OF 10WBS NumberActivity DescriptionHours Parsons GCAP Arellano HDR Southstar OPC Psomas Cofiroute Total Cost Total Cost by Task 11,665,911$ TASK 300 - Tolling & Operations30101Tolling and Operation Planning 4,220669,011$ 669,011$ 35101Tolling and Operation Planning 60109,044$ 109,044$ 35201Operations and Business Planning354 01Tolling and Operations Planning 974144,017$ 144,017$ 922,072$ TASK 400 - Contracts & Procurement40101Contract/Procurement Management2,600419,070$ 419,070$ 40401Request for Proposals (RFP)880203,660$ 203,660$ 45301Request for Proposals (RFP) 1,060224,240$ 224,240$ 846,970$ TASK 500 - Project Controls50101Project Controls Management2,080325,331$ 325,331$ 50201Cost Engineering 2,158183,704$ 183,704$ 50301Scheduling 1,040151,637$ 151,637$ 50401Document Controls Management2,080132,338$ 132,338$ 50501Cost Estimating10421,505$ 21,505$ 814,514$ TASK 600 - Construction Management60101Construction Planning 2,080472,446$ 472,446$ 60201Field Services Support1,040157,289$ 157,289$ 60301ROW Parcel Construction Mitigation2,500539,252$ 539,252$ TASK 700 - Other Direct Cost1,168,987$ ODC's403,480$ 408$ 4,320$ 32,076$ 2,664$ 30,750$ 154,220$ 5,452$ 633,370$ 633,370$ Sub Total 6,021,040$ 142,632$ 271,172$ 680,073$ 22,777$ 9,522,502$ 1,159,097$ 149,468$ 17,968,763$ Sub Mark-Up (4.0% on OPC, 3.5% on others)465,783$ 4,992$ 9,491$ 23,803$ 797$ 380,900$ 40,568$ 5,231$ 465,783$ 465,783$ TOTAL Contract Value by Firm110,5526,486,823$ 142,632$ 271,172$ 680,073$ 22,777$ 9,522,502$ 1,159,097$ 149,468$ 18,434,545$ 18,434,545$ LNTP 6 Budget - Rev 2 - FINAL.xlsx6
AGENDA ITEM 8
Agenda Item 8
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: May 21, 2012
TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
FROM: Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: State Route 91 Design-Build Procurement
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Authorize staff, subject to approval by the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
to issue a request for proposal (RFP) and future addenda for design-build
services in accordance with Public Contract Code sections 6800 et seq. for
the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP) to the four
pre-qualified design-build teams;
2) Approve the selection criteria and process for selection of the pre-qualified
firm providing the best-value to the Commission, otherwise known as
apparent best value (ABV) proposer;
3) Authorize the Executive Director to select the three top-ranked ABV
Proposers for design-build services, based on the criteria and selection
procedures identified in the RFP and any addendum(s) thereto, and
subsequently to conduct limited negotiations with the top-ranked ABV
proposer;
4) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to negotiate with the
second-ranked ABV proposer if negotiations fail with the top-ranked ABV
proposer and with the third-ranked ABV proposer should negotiations fail
with both the top-ranked and second-ranked ABV proposers;
5) Authorize the Executive Director to issue a request for a best and final offer
(BAFO) to the proposers if found to be in the best interests of the
Commission, to make changes to the RFP, solicit BAFOs from proposers,
evaluate revised proposals, select an ABV proposer, negotiate with the
top-ranked proposer and second and third-ranked if necessary, and make a
recommendation of contract award based upon the revised proposals in
accordance with 23 CFR Part 636;
6) Authorize the Executive Director to return to the Commission with a
recommendation to award a contract for design-build services. The
recommendation shall be accompanied by a written decision supporting the
recommendation and stating the basis for the award;
7
Agenda Item 8
7) Authorize the Executive Director to pay a stipend to unsuccessful proposers
that meet the RFP criteria for stipend payment up to $650,000 per
unsuccessful proposers or a total not to exceed of $2.6 million for all
unsuccessful proposers after final action by the Commission on the RFP;
8) Approve that particular materials, products, or services that are elements of
the proposed design-build services for the SR-91 CIP are to be designated in
the RFP by specific brand names or trade names to match and be
interoperable with other products used by the Commission and other related
facilities as authorized by Public Contracts Code, section 3400(b); and
9) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Early Development of the SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project
Subsequent to public ownership of the 91 Express Lanes, Orange and Riverside
Counties commissioned a major investment study (MIS) to identify a range of
feasible alternatives that would improve mobility between the two counties. This
study was initiated in June 2004 and completed in December 2005. Following the
MIS, the Commission sponsored a project study report (PSR) to further develop and
study the possible addition of one general-purpose lane in each direction. The PSR
was approved by Caltrans on December 4, 2006. Simultaneously, the Commission
performed an independent feasibility study to determine the financial viability to
construct tolled express lanes (TEL) on SR-91 in addition to the general purpose
lanes proposed in the PSR.
The Commission approved moving forward with environmental studies for TEL on
SR-91 on December 13, 2006. The draft environmental document was released
for a public review period on May 20, 2011. The public comment period was
closed on July 11, 2011. Environmental approval is expected in summer 2012.
10-Year Delivery Plan
Measure A was first passed in 1989 with an expiration date of 2009. In 2002, the
voters approved a 30-year extension through 2039. At the same meeting in which
the Commission approved moving forward with the SR-91 CIP environmental
studies, the Commission adopted the 2009 Measure A Western County Highway
10-Year Delivery Plan (10-Year Delivery Plan). The 10-Year Delivery Plan calls for
the development of TEL corridors within SR-91 and Interstate 15.
Selection of Contracting Method
In order to achieve the benefits of the corridor improvements in a timely and most
cost effective manner, the SR-91 CIP will be procured and contracted through a
8
Agenda Item 8
single private entity under a competitively bid, best-value, design-build
procurement. The decision to proceed with this approach was driven in large part
by the financing mechanism, as a design-builder provided fixed-price and schedule
help in securing financing through the sale of toll revenue bonds and obtaining a
federal loan by providing cost and schedule certainty.
Other benefits of the design-build approach include:
• Single point of responsibility where the design-builder is responsible for both
final design and construction of the SR-91CIP; and
• The design-builder assumes the greatest share of risk relating to final design,
construction, delivery schedule, and utility relocation, therefore reducing the
chance of cost overruns. Opportunities for innovation to reduce cost and
schedule can be captured through:
o Alternative technical concepts (ATCs) that generally include innovative
technical solutions or approaches to perform the work offered during
the procurement phase; and
o Value engineering during final design and construction.
Authority to Use the Design-Build Method of Project Delivery
In March 2010, the California Transportation Commission approved the
Commission’s use of the design-build method of project delivery for the SR-91 CIP
under SB X2 4 and the statewide design-build pilot program. Separately, to
minimize the litigation and delay risk of using design-build, the Commission also
sought design-build authority through AB 2098 (Miller), which was ultimately
passed and signed into law on September 23, 2010.
Project Scope
Federal design-build contracting regulations allow proceeding with the design-build
selection process before environmental approval provided that proposers are
informed of the general status of the environmental review, do not assume an
unnecessary amount of risk in the event the environmental process results in a
significant change, and authorization to proceed with final design, and construction
is not issued until environmental approval is granted. Accordingly, the Commission
has developed a design-build scope of work consistent with the locally preferred
alternative selected by the Commission on July 14, 2010. The SR-91 CIP is
generally described as extending the existing 91 Express Lanes into Riverside
County and the addition of a general purpose lane in each direction. More
specifically the SR-91 CIP improvements include:
• Extending the existing 91 Express Lanes east from the Orange/Riverside
County line to I-15, a distance of approximately eight miles;
• Adding a TEL direct connector to and from I-15, south of SR-91, a distance
of approximately three miles;
9
Agenda Item 8
• Adding a general purpose lane in each direction from the 71/91 interchange
to I-15;
• Reconstruction and geometric improvements to five local interchanges within
the city of Corona (Main Street, Grand Avenue, Lincoln Avenue, Maple
Street, and Serfas Club/Auto Center Drive);
• Addition of auxiliary lanes and other operational improvements;
• Installation of a fully automated electronic toll collection and enforcement
system;
• Reconstruction of impacted city streets, soundwall construction, and
aesthetics improvements.
Design-Build Procurement
The Process
The design-builder will be selected using a two-step procurement process, as
allowed by federal design-build contracting statutes. The first step consists of
short listing or prequalification based on a request for qualifications (RFQ). In
accordance with AB 2098, the Commission followed a prequalification process.
The second step will consist of the receipt and evaluation of price and technical
proposals in response to a RFP. Award will be based upon a best-value
determination with criteria established in the RFP.
In addition to the two-step process, the Commission added an additional step to
enhance the design-build procurement. This initial step asked for submission of a
request for expression of interest (RFEI) and was an initial outreach effort to inform
and solicit interest from the contracting community. The RFEI is not a prerequisite
to participate in the two-step selection process. The RFEI was issued on
June 30, 2010 with 17 responses received on July 12, 2010.
Request for Qualifications
Very soon after passage of AB 2098, staff issued the RFQ for design-build
services. On October 21, 2010, the Commission received five statements of
qualifications (SOQs) in response to the RFQ. A selection team of staff and agency
partners reviewed the SOQ’s and performed a comprehensive evaluation. On
January 5, 2011, the Commission announced the prequalification of the following
four design-build teams:
• Atkinson/Walsh, a Joint Venture
• The Kiewit Team
• Flatiron/Skanska/Rados, a Joint Venture
• Shimmick Construction Company, Inc./ Obayashi Corp./ FNF Construction,
Inc.
10
Agenda Item 8
Attachment 1 includes a comprehensive listing of the four design-build teams.
Industry Review
Staff waited to start the second step until more certainty was obtained regarding
environmental approvals and project funding. On May 7, 2012 staff issued the
draft RFP to the four pre-qualified teams. The purpose of this step, called the
industry review, is to allow the four pre-qualified teams an opportunity to comment
on the draft RFP before finalization. The draft RFP included the following
documents:
• Instructions to Proposers
• Design-Build Contract
• Technical Provisions
• Reference Documents
Industry review of a draft RFP provides the Commission the benefit of the design-
builder perspective and a forum for discussion of a design-builder’s innovative
approaches. The industry review process also provides an opportunity for the
design-builders to identify particular specifications or requirements that may drive
costs higher, and/or identify requirements that are potential deal killers or that
might force otherwise highly qualified design-build teams to drop out of the
procurement. The industry review process typically results in improved
procurement documents for an owner and reduced contingency pricing in a design-
builder’s bid. The industry review process concludes upon issuance of the final
RFP.
DISCUSSION:
Issuance of the Design-Build Final RFP
With environmental approval expected to occur Summer 2012, coupled with the
recent invitation to submit a federal TIFIA loan application – the final piece to
completely fund the SR-91 CIP – staff is recommending proceeding with release of
the final RFP, subject to approval by Caltrans and FHWA. A graphic illustration of
the subsequent timeline, including required Commission actions, is depicted in
Attachment 2.
The final RFP will contain input from the design-build teams received through the
industry review process in the form of written comments and/or meetings held with
each design-build team. The comments received will be evaluated and incorporated
as appropriate into the final RFP.
11
Agenda Item 8
Selection Process
The process to determine the ABV proposer through a best-value design-build
procurement for the SR-91 CIP has been established by the Commission and its
consultants in accordance with federal requirements 23 CFR 636 and state
requirements through AB 2098. Generally, under a best-value selection process,
each proposer submits technical and financial proposals. The proposals are then
evaluated and scored on three primary factors: 1) bid price; 2) proposed completion
schedule; and 3) technical concepts and approach to the project. The weighting of
each factor is determined prior to issuing the RFP. The scored factors are then
combined using the predetermined weighting to derive the highest score and the
ABV proposer.
Specifically, the selection process commences once the Commission has received
the proposals from the four pre-qualified firms. The steps to selection of the ABV
proposer and the award of a design-build contract are as follows:
1) The proposals are received from the prequalified proposers and are logged in
and stored in a secure location;
2) The proposals are then separated into two components, financial proposals
and technical proposals, and provided to the financial proposal evaluation
subcommittee (FPES) and technical proposal evaluation subcommittee
(TPES), or subcommittees, for evaluation. Each of these subcommittees is
made up of staff and other agency personnel with the appropriate
experience;
3) The subcommittees each perform a responsiveness review of their respective
proposals to ensure the proposers have met the requirements of the RFP,
including organization, format, and inclusive of all the forms, as provided in
the instructions to proposers (ITP);
4) Following the responsiveness review, each proposal is then evaluated against
the pass/fail criteria identified in the ITP, which includes such criteria as
company guarantees, proposal security, Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
certification and adherence to the time for schedule completion. Proposals
that meet the criteria move to the next step in the evaluation process.
Proposers whose proposals did not meet the criteria may be allowed to either
correct their deficiencies through clarifications and additional information at
the Commission’s option, or be excused from further consideration;
5) The technical and financial proposals are then individually reviewed by
advisory groups consisting of Commission staff and its consultants. The
advisory groups provide the TPES and FPES a summary of their review
findings;
6) Each of the subcommittees then performs its individual review and
evaluation of the proposals and formulates its individual recommendations;
12
Agenda Item 8
7) Individual subcommittee member recommendations are scored and combined
based on the predetermined weighting of the bid price, proposed completion
schedule, and technical concepts and approach to the project; and
8) The proposer with the highest ABV score is selected for final negotiations. If
negotiations are successful a recommendation for award of a design-build
contract is made to the Commission.
Attachment 3 provides an overview of the proposal evaluation and selection
organizational structure. Attachment 4 provides a flowchart of the selection
process.
Apparent Best Value Determination
The best-value determination will be based on a 100 point scale. The price score
will represent up to 80 points of the total score, and the technical score will
represent up to 20 points of the total score. The determination of ABV shall be
based on the highest total proposal score (TPS) computed based on the following
formula:
TPS (max.100 pts.) = Price Score (max. 80 pts.) + Technical Score (max. 20 pts)
The price score will be calculated based on the following formula:
Price Score = (APPVLow/APPV) * 80, where;
APPVLow = Lowest Adjusted Proposal Present Value (APPV) submitted by any
proposer as determined by its fixed price, discounted monthly using a
discount rate of 4 percent, and making a schedule adjustment of
$95,000 per day times the number of calendar days difference
between the number of calendars days shown in its proposal and the
number of calendars days shown in the proposal with the shortest
duration.
APPV = Each proposer’s APPV as determined by their fixed price, discounted
monthly using a discount rate of 4 percent, and making a schedule
adjustment of $95,000 per day times the number of calendar days
difference between its proposal duration and the proposal with the
shortest duration.
The technical score will be calculated based on the following formula:
Technical Score =
(TPES evaluation score/Highest TPES evaluation score for all proposers) * 20
13
Agenda Item 8
The technical score calculation will be based on the TPES evaluation score for the
technical proposal that is based on factors regarding a proposer’s technical
approach, project delivery approach, and quality management plan.
Best and Final Offer
The ability to issue a request for a BAFO is a common concept in design-build
highway procurements and is specifically allowed under federal design-build
procurement regulations (23 CFR Part 636). Although rarely used, having the ability
to request a BAFO provides an option for the Commission to avoid delays that may
occur during the procurement process. Typical examples that may trigger the
issuance of a BAFO would include receipt of cost proposals that are all higher than
the project budget and a determination that the RFP terms must be revised in order to
clarify an ambiguity or to address changes in underlying circumstances. If used, a
BAFO may be solicited at any time after receipt of proposals and prior to final
award and shall follow the federal procedures for revised proposals.
Stipend
A stipend is an amount paid to unsuccessful but responsive proposers on design-
build procurements. Stipends are commonly used by agencies nationally to reduce
costs to industry for participation in design-build procurements and provide
Proposers partial compensation for development of technical concepts and
innovations. Stipends generally cover 20% to 40% of the proposer’s cost to
prepare a responsive proposal/bid and allow an agency to have the right to
incorporate a proposer’s technical concepts and innovations into the project or
elsewhere. Stipends have been found to also increase competition by allowing
firms to participate due to lower proposal costs and enhance price competition by
keeping proposers in the game.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), under 23 CFR 636.112 and 636.113
provide for federal-aid participation in stipends with certain stipulations. There is
no fixed formula for stipends. Industry surveys reveal that stipends are typically
found to be in the range of 0.01% to 0.25% of the design-build contract value.
The proposed stipend for the SR-91 CIP of $650,000 per team is approximately
.08% of the estimated design-build contract value.
Staff recommends paying a stipend to the unsuccessful but responsive proposers
for the following reasons:
• The SR-91 CIP is being procured using a design-build method of
procurement;
• FHWA recognizes and participates in the cost of stipends;
14
Agenda Item 8
• Payment of stipends is a common, national practice by agencies conducting
design-build procurements;
• Encourages competition among the engineering and construction firms;
• Signals the Commission’s commitment to successfully complete the
procurement;
• Provides further incentive to the proposers to innovate and perform
additional engineering work up-front and as part of their proposals;
• Allows the Commission to use for the SR-91 CIP any innovations or technical
concepts contained in the unsuccessful proposals; and
• Reduces the chance of procurement protests by unsuccessful proposers
because proposers who protest are not awarded stipends.
Payment of the stipend to the unsuccessful proposers will be made if their proposal
is determined by the Commission to be responsive, achieves a passing score under
the criteria identified in the RFP, and all other conditions of the stipend agreement
included in the RFP are met. Proposers will not receive a stipend if the Commission
withdraws the RFP prior to the due date. Payment of the stipend will be made only
after the design-build contract has been awarded to the successful proposer.
Brand and Trade Name Usage
The Commission and Caltrans currently use certain software, equipment, and
services to develop and operate their existing projects. It is important for the
SR-91 CIP that the software, equipment, and services used by the design-builder
be compatible and interoperable with those currently used by the Commission and
Caltrans. Use of incompatible products and services can lead to increased costs,
operational difficulties, user confusion, and inefficiencies. Interchangeability and
compatibility with software, equipment, and services in use on related facilities will
minimize disruption to the SR-91 CIP, agencies, and ultimately the travelling public.
Matching of the existing software, equipment, and services listed below is critical
to the efficient design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the project.
Computer Software
• Microsoft Windows 7 (operating system)
• Microsoft Office with Word, Excel, Outlook, and Media Player
• IBM Lotus Notes
• Novell GroupWise
Design Software Applications
• Civild and WSPGW programs from Civil Design Corp
• FHWA Urban Drainage Design program
• HY-22 (drainage of highway pavements)
• ONDRRAIN v 7.5c (hydraulic calculator for onsite drainage)
• HEC-RAS 4.1 (hydraulic software)
15
Agenda Item 8
• Bentley MicroStation CAD software
• Autodesk Civil 3D roadway design software
• Auto Turn by Transoft Solutions
• Primavera scheduling software
• FHWA RealCost software (version 2.2)
• Geotechnical software gINT (version 8 or higher)
Seismic Equipment/Instrumentation Sensors
• Vibrating wire stain gage: VCE-4200 by Geokon, Inc. or Model EM-5 by
Roctest, Inc.
• Force balanced accelerometers: manufactured by Kinematic
• Tilt meters: Model 800-H tilt meters with high-gain option by Applied
Geomechanics, Inc.
• Humidity meters: Model HMP 45A by Vaisala, Inc. or Model HMP 45C by
Campbell Scientific, Inc.
Freeway Service Patrol
• Pepe’s Towing
• Tri-City Towing
Schedule
The following represent the planned procurement milestones:
Milestone Activity Date
Industry review meetings (with pre-qualified teams) June 4-8, 2012
Issue final RFP (to pre-qualified teams) July 2012
One-on-one meetings August-October 2012
Final RFP addendum December 2012
Proposal due date January 2013
Proposal evaluation January-February 2013
Selection, negotiation, and staff recommendation February-March 2013
Committee and Commission approval of contract award March-April 2013
Financial Close May-July 2013
Notice to Proceed for final design and construction May-July 2013
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff requests Commission approval to release the final RFP and future addenda,
for the SR-91 CIP, subject to approval by Caltrans and FHWA. Authorization is
also requested to approve the RFP selection criteria and process to select an ABV
proposer, select the top three ranked best-value proposers, issue a BAFO
(if required), conduct limited negotiations, return to the Commission with a design-
16
Agenda Item 8
build contract award recommendation, pay a stipend to the unsuccessful
responsive proposers, and incorporate specific brand or trade names into the RFP.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2012/13 Amount: $2,600,000
Source of Funds: Measure A Budget Adjustment: No
GL/Project Accounting No.: 003028 65520 262 31 65520 (Professional Services –
Other)
Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 05/10/12
Attachments:
1) Pre-Qualified Proposer Listing: SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project
2) Procurement Timeline – Commission Action Periods
3) Proposal Evaluation and Selection Organizational Structure
4) Selection Process
17
PRE-QUALIFIED PROPOSER LISTING: SR-91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
1. Atkinson/Walsh, a Joint Venture
Major Participants/
Principal Participants
Atkinson Contractors, LP
Walsh Construction Company
The Walsh Group
Clark Construction Group, LLC
Guy F. Atkinson Construction, LLC
Other Team Members URS – URS is not a Principal Participant or Equity Provider (Designer)
WKE, Inc.
Tatsumi and Partners, Inc.
Westbound Communications
Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.
2. The Kiewit Team
Major Participants/
Principal Participants
Kiewit Infrastructure West Co.
Other Team Members HNTB Corporation – Not a Principal Participant (Designer)
Brutoco Engineering and Construction, Inc
Riverside Construction Company, Inc (RCC)
Kleinfelder West, Inc.
Iteris, Inc.
Simon Wong Engineering
Green Com, Inc.
3. Flatiron/Skanska/Rados, a Joint Venture
Major Participants/
Principal Participants
Flatiron West, Inc.
Skanska USA Civil West California District
Steve P. Rados, Inc.
Other Team Members AECOM (Lead Designer)
CH2M Hill
Consensus Inc.
Kimley Horn & Associates
Diaz Yourman and Associates
Leighton Consulting, Inc.
Lin Consulting
Wilson & Co.
David Evans & Associates
Civil Works
4. Shimmick Construction Company, Inc./ Obayashi Corporation/ FNF Construction, Inc.
Major Participants/
Principal Participants
Shimmick Construction Company, Inc.
Obayashi Corporation
FNF Construction, Inc.
Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc.
MTS Engineers, Inc.
BKF Engineers
Faubel Public Affairs
TransCore
Ultrasystems Environmental
Hatch Mott MacDonald
18
19
111.111 VIM MI
(saaRaldu.t3 A ua2v)
paeag lat uaaN amj .
Q
MIN MI •1111
Q
aannpnags/uo!lez!ueaap uownien3 d��
21
State Route 91 Design-Build
Procurement
For
Western Riverside County
Programs and Projects Committee
May21, 2012
[ Fixed lump sum pricing
[ Securing financing
[ Single point of responsibility
[ Risk transfer
[ Innovation
5/17/2012
1
" B i l l p a s s e d F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 9
" S t a t e w i d e p i l o t p r o g r a m f o r
d e s i g n - b u i l d
" C T C a p p r o v a l M a r c h 2 0 1 0
A B 2 0 9 8
( M i l l e r )
" B i l l p a s s e d S e p t e m b e r 2 0 0 9
" S R - 9 1 C I P : P r o j e c t - S p e c i f i c
A u t h o r i t y
" G o v e r n e d b y C a l i f o r n i a a n d
F e d e r a l r e g u l a t i o n s
+
P r e - Q u a l i f i e d T e a m s
S h " m m " d C o n s t r u c t t o n C o m p o l n y I n '